SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 1438

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SHRAYANSH JAIN – Appellant
Versus
M/S ALGEBRA CONSTRUCTION & ORS – Respondent



##PAGE1##

CR-9095-2025 (O&M) 1

127 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

CR-9095-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision : 05.02.2026

SHRAYANSH JAIN ....Petitioner

Versus

M/S ALGEBRA CONSTRUCTION & ORS ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN

Present : Mr. Vilas Sharma, Advocate

for the petitioner.

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

Present revision petition is directed against order dated

07.07.2025 passed by Commercial Court whereby the application filed by

the petitioner, under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC, seeking deletion of his name

from the array of parties, has been dismissed.

2. Petitioner has been arraigned as defendant No.5 in a suit for

specific performance filed by plaintiff/respondent. An application was

moved by the petitioner/defendant No.5 seeking deletion of his name. As

per the petitioner, he is neither a party to the collaboration agreement

propounded by the plaintiff nor has acted in his personal capacity. Thus, he

can neither be claimed to be a necessary nor proper party.

DEEPAK KUMAR

2026.02.09 09:41

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

##PAGE2##

CR-9095-2025 (O&M) 2

3. The application was opposed by the plaintiff asserting that

defendant No.5 is necessary and proper party being director of defendant

No.1 and his presence is necessary for proper adjudication of the suit.

4. Application filed by the plaintiff stands dismissed by the Trial

Court referring to the specific allegations levelled in the plaint.

5. Counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order passed by the

Commercial Court. He asserts that the plaint is totally bereft of any

allegation levelled against defendant No.5 in person. Defendant No.5, the

petitioner having acted only as a Director of the company is neither

necessary nor proper party for adjudication of the matter in hand and thus he

cannot be allowed to face the ordeal of trial.

6. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and have gone through

records of the case.

7. The argument raised by counsel for the petitioner w.r.t. there

being no allegation levelled against the petitioner, is against the record and is

misconceived. Reference can be made to the pleadings raised in Para No.12,

17, 18, 19 & 20 of the plaint wherein the grievance of the plaintiff is w.r.t.

actions taken by defendant No.5 in person and qua his interference in

construction.

8. It is true that Order I Rule 10 CPC is an exception to the

principle of dominus litis and the plaintiff cannot be allowed to implead

DEEPAK KUMAR

2026.02.09 09:41

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

##PAGE3##

CR-9095-2025 (O&M) 3

someone unnecessarily. However, the plaintiff is well within his right to

implead a party which is necessary and proper for the adjudication of the lis.

9. The test to ascertain the necessary and proper party has been

laid down by Five Judges Bench of Supreme Court in the case of U.P. Awas

Evam Vikas Parishad vs. Gyam Devi (dead) by L.Rs. (1995) 2 SCC 326

observing as under:

“22. xxx xxx xxx That raises the question whether the local

authority can be regarded as a necessary or a proper party. The law

is well settled that a necessary party is one without whom no order

can be made effectively and a proper party is one in whose absence

an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for

a complete and final decision of the question involved in the

proceeding. (See: Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Additional

Member, Board of Revenue, [1963] Supp. 1 SCR 676, at p. 681.

(emphasis supplied)

10. Applying the aforesaid ratio, this Court finds that even if the

plea raised by the petitioner w.r.t. him not being a necessary party is

accepted, it cannot be held that he is not a proper party.

11. In view of above, finding no merit in the present revision

petition, the same is ordered to be dismissed.

12. Pending application, if any, shall also stands disposed off.

February 05, 2026 (Pankaj Jain)

Dpr Judge

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No

Whether reportable : Yes/No

DEEPAK KUMAR

2026.02.09 09:41

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top